God’s name may be hidden in the Megillat Esther, but the name of Esther does appear in Pirkei Avot, along with that of Mordechai. The only citation in Avot of the megillah comes at Avot 6:6, where the 48th and final element of acquiring Torah is to quote the source from which you have learned something. The tail-end of this magnificent baraita reads as follows:
וְהָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ, הָא לָמַֽדְתָּ,
כָּל הָאוֹמֵר דָּבָר בְּשֵׁם אוֹמְרוֹ, מֵבִיא גְאֻלָּה לָעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַתֹּֽאמֶר
אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּֽלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מָרְדְּכָי
…and saying something in the name
of its speaker. Thus you learn: Everyone who says something in the name of the
one who says it brings redemption to the world, as it states (Esther 2:22):
"And Esther told the king in the name of Mordechai”.
What was it that Esther told the king? That Mordechai had
overheard the plot of Bigtan and Teresh to overthrow him. This piece of useful
service to the crown was duly recorded in the state annals and it was this that
King Ahasuerus read during about of insomnia, leading ultimately to the
downfall of Haman and to the Jews being saved from the massacre that was
awaiting them.
The verse in Megillat Esther applies to sourcing information
of a sensitive political nature, involving state security. Our Baraita takes it
into another area entirely by applying it to learning Torah.
This guidance is highly regarded, to the extent that,
according to Rabbi Elazar Ezkari (Sefer Charedim 47.1), it is actually
forbidden to fail to give the name of a person who first gave over a teaching.
Our baraita contains an apparent paradox: whoever cites the
name of the originator of a piece of learning when he quotes it will bring
redemption to the world—but the Baraita does not name the originator of this
statement. More than that, the compiler of this perek of Avot does not even
name the baraita’s author. For the record, The name of the Tanna Rabbi Yose is
twice found in close proximity to this maxim where it appears in the Babylonian
Talmud (Chullin 104b and Niddah 19b) but nowhere is it stated that he is its
author. In Megillah 15b the same principle is taught in the name of later
rabbis (the Amora Rabbi Elazar teaching it in the name of an earlier Amora,
Rabbi Chanina).
The Maharsha (Megillah 15b) speculates that no question is
raised regarding its authorship since it is only a baraita, not a mishnah, and that
the Amora Rabbi Elazar, who cites this learning in the name of Rabbi Chanina,
may have done so because he was unfamiliar with its existence as a baraita. Even
so, regardless of its authorship and the reason, if any, for not citing it, the
maxim retains its force: the correct citation of one’s sources can enhance both
the transparency and the authority of one’s arguments, leading to their
acceptance where they are correct and to their dismissal or refutation where
they are not.
Every rule seems to have its exceptions and the Babylonian
Talmud does record for us a number of examples where this principle is plainly
disregarded in favour of false attribution.
This occurs where Amoraim discern a greater good which only false attribution
can achieve—this greater good frequently being framed as a means of persuading
the Jewish population at large to accept an undoubtedly correct halachic ruling
which, if learned in the name of its true author, would carry considerably less
weight. For those who want to know more. There is a review of the deployment of
false attribution in the Talmud and elsewhere, the circumstances in which it
may be tolerated and the responses of commentators ancient and modern in Marc
B. Shapiro, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its
History, in Chapter 8 (“Is the Truth Really That important?”).
Not all rabbis in the era of the Amoraim respected our name-your-source
principle. A revealing passage in the Talmud (Bechorot 31b) deals with an
answer that Rav Sheshet had given to a particular question:
Rav Idi was the attendant of Rav
Sheshet. He heard [Rav Sheshet’s answer] from him and proceeded to mention it
in the Bet Midrash, but did not cite it in his [i.e. Rav Sheshet’s] name. Rav
Sheshet heard about this and was annoyed. He exclaimed: “He who has stung me--a
scorpion should sting him!” [The Talmud then asks] “But what practical
difference did this make to Rav Sheshet?”
The Talmud then explains that, where a person repeats what
he has learned together with the name of the person from whom he learnt it, it
is as though his teacher lives in two worlds: the World he occupies during his
lifetime and, after he dies, when he “lives” in the World to Come since the
lips of scholars murmur in their graves when their names are mentioned. On the
subject of names, when Rav Sheshet invites the scorpion to sting Rav Idi, he
does not mention his attendant’s name—possibly because Rav Sheshet’s father had
the same name (Pesachim 49a), it being regarded as disrespectful for a son to
utter his father’s name, whether during his life and thereafter.
For comments and discussion of this post on Facebook, click here.
